The applicant requests a Conditional Use permit to allow a
second story on top of an existing legally non-conforming
building which is 3.62 feet from the rear setback line (see
as-built survey, Attachment A). The proposed remodel would retain
half of the existing 843 square feet structure consisting of the
kitchen, living room, and bathroom, and replace a section of
approximately 384 square feet that encloses two bedrooms. This
section would be rebuilt within its existing footprint with an
additional second story. The project would increase the size of
the house to approximately 1,227 square feet. The new house would
remain a two-bedroom home but have a second bathroom. (See
Attachments C and D for detailed building plans, and Attachment
B, applicant letter.)

BACKGROUND

The existing home was built in the 1950s and is currently a
single-story, two-bedroom home with a living area of 843 square
feet. The applicant has received approval from CBJ building staff
to demolish the rear of the home and then reconstruct, per CBJ
Code §49.30.500 (a) (See memo, Attachment H). The demolition and
reconstruction provision of the Code allows the first story to be
reconstructed within the existing building footprint and setbacks
as part of the existing non-conforming development. The second
story addition to this non-conforming building requires a
Conditional Use permit, per CBJ Code §49.25.430 (4) (L), which
reads:

The commission, through the conditional use permit process,
may allow the addition of a second or third story atop an
existing enclosed structure which projects into a required yard
setback if the structure is either lawfully non-conforming or if
a variance was previously granted for the structure. The
commission may deny such request if it finds that the addition
would result in excessive blockage of views, excessive
restriction of light and air, or other deleterious impacts.

ANALYSIS

Project Site

The site is located on a slope in the historic Starr Hill
neighborhood. The home lies in the far rear corner of the lot, at
the end of a long flight of stairs. The applicant owns a fraction
of the adjacent rear diagonal lot as the location for a fuel
tank, and also owns the adjacent lot southwest of the subject
property, which is vacant.

Project Design

The proposed remodel increases the living area of this small
home to a size more consistent with neighboring homes. Two story
homes are common in this neighborhood, and the design of the
proposed structure is compatible with existing buildings in this
historic area.

Blockage of Views

The lot behind the home and nearest to the proposed second
story addition is up-slope and screened from view by a thick row
of large spruce trees. As it will not be necessary to cut any of
these trees for the proposed construction, the view from this lot
will not be impacted. The proposed structure will have some
impact on the view from the lot diagonally and to the rear of the
subject property. However the proposed 364 square foot second
story is small, and the significant slope of the property
minimizes the impact of the height increase of the building. In
addition, the windows of the home on that lot face forward toward
the channel and do not have any windows directed toward the
applicants property. The two lots on the other side of the
property are owned by the applicant and CBJ, and both are vacant.

Restriction of Light and Air, and Other Deleterious Impacts

Because the 364 square foot second story is small and placed
on a slope, staff has not found evidence of any significant
restriction of light and air. Nor has staff found evidence of
other deleterious impacts, including impacts to public health or
safety, in the proposed development.

Juneau Coastal Management Program

Staff has reviewed the development and found that no
enforceable provisions of the JCMP apply.

FINDINGS

CBJ §49.15.330 (e)(1), Review of Director's Determinations,
states that the Planning Commission shall review the director's
report to consider:

1. Whether the application is complete; and,

2. Whether the proposed use is appropriate according to the
Table of Permissible Uses;

3. Whether the development as proposed will comply with the
other requirements of this chapter.

4. The commission shall adopt the director's determination on
the three items above unless it finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the director's determination was in error, and
states its reasoning for each finding with particularity.

CBJ §49.15.330 (f), Commission Determinations, states that
even if the commission adopts the director's determination, it
may nonetheless deny or condition the permit if it concludes,
based upon its own independent review of the information
submitted at the public hearing, that the development will more
probably than not:

1. Materially endanger the public health or safety;

2. Substantially decrease the value of or be out of harmony
with property in the neighboring area; or,

3. Not be in general conformity with the comprehensive plan,
thoroughfare plan, or other officially adopted plans.

Per CBJ §49.15.330 (e)(1)(A thru C), Review of Director's
Determinations, the director makes the following findings on the
proposed development:

Is the application for the requested Conditional
Use permit complete?

Yes. We find the application contains the
information necessary to conduct a full review of the
proposed operations. The application submitted by the
applicant, including the appropriate fees, substantially
conform to the requirements of CBJ code Chapters §49.15.

2.
Is the proposed use appropriate according to the Table of
Permissible Uses?

Yes. The TPU allows a single-family dwelling in
this zoning district. The proposed use is specifically
allowed with a Conditional Use permit, per CBJ Code
§49.25.430 (4) (L).

3. Will the proposed development comply with the
other requirements of this chapter?

Yes. The proposed development complies with the other
requirements of this chapter.

Notice was provided in the Juneau Empire under Your
Municipality which ran on Friday, March 30, 2001. A
public notice sign was posted on the site at least 14
days prior to the meeting and notice was mailed to owners
of record of all property within 500 feet of the subject
property.

Will the proposed development materially endanger
the public health or safety?

No. No evidence indicates that the proposed
development will materially endanger the public health or
safety.

5. Will the proposed development
substantially decrease the value of or be out of harmony
with property in the neighboring area?

No. Two story homes are common in the
neighborhood, and the design of the proposed structure is
compatible with existing buildings in this historic area.
The home to the immediate rear of the property is upslope
from the applicants lot and screened from view by
large spruce trees. The proposed structure will have some
impact on the view from the lot diagonally and to the
rear of the subject property. However the proposed 364
square foot second story is small, and the significant
slope of the property minimizes the impact of the height
increase of the building. Therefore, staff finds no
evidence that the proposed development will substantially
decrease the value of or be out of harmony with property
in the neighboring area.

6. Will the proposed development be in general
conformity with the land use plan, thoroughfare plan, or
other officially adopted plans?

Yes. The proposed development is in general
conformity with the land use plan, thoroughfare plan, and
other officially adopted plans. Specifically, the
development promotes Policy 2.3 of the Juneau
Comprehensive Plan which reads, "it is the policy of
the CBJ to promote compact urban development within and
adjacent to existing urban areas to insure efficient
utilization of land resources and facilitate economic
provision of urban facilities and services."

Will the proposed development comply with the
Juneau Coastal Management Program?

Not applicable.

8. Will the proposed development result in
excessive blockage of views, excessive restriction of
light and air, or other deleterious impacts?

No.
The home to the immediate rear of the property is upslope
from the applicants lot and screened from view by
large spruce trees. The proposed structure will have some
impact on the view from the lot diagonally and to the
rear of the subject property. However the proposed second
story is small, and the slope of the property minimizes
the impact of the height increase of the building. In
addition the windows of the home on that lot face forward
toward the channel and no windows are directed toward the
applicants property. The small dimensions of the
proposed structure minimize the restriction of light and
air. Staff has found no evidence of other deleterious
impacts.

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the director's
analysis and findings and grant the requested Conditional Use
permit. The permit would allow the development of a second story
on top of an existing non-conforming building, which is 3.62 feet
from the rear setback line, at 419 Kennedy Street.